I once saw a video from the Waldorf schools that has stuck with me ever since. In the video, one of the teachers says “People press down an adult consciousness on children in the name of performance.” That line has stuck with me ever since – focusing on performance rather than development is creating a generation of sociopaths- all so we can brag about our kids to our “friends.”

An article in Big Think entitled “Elementary Children are not Little High School Students,” makes the case for stopping the madness:

Public schools, terrified of losing funding due to low test scores, have moved to “teaching to the test,” where the goal is passing exams, not mastery of a subject. (In Michigan last month it was announced that 100 schools were to be shut down because their students fell short on these exams.)

The article goes on to say that homework for elementary school students is harmful to students, damages family relationships (cutting in to essential family time – drug use is inversely correlated with family dinners), kids need rest after long school days and they need time to be kids. Thereʻs no evidence homework, at least in lower grades, works – countries that pour on the homework, like Iran and South Korea, donʻt score very well on international comparisons, for example, compared to Finland, which assigns little to no homework even in the older grades.

Share this:

Like this:

Back in the late 1990s, I did research that led to a report (co-authored with Paul Dunphy) on the privatization of public services in Massachusetts, Privatizing the Common Wealth, in which I looked at “privatization” of public education. The trend, which was still unclear at the time, was that the Right would slowly begin a process of dismantling public education using this sequence: 1) high stakes testing to discredit public schools, 2) charter schools to loosen DOE controls over education, 3) vouchers to redirect public funds to private schools. At some point in the future, when public education is throughly discredited, public schools could begin to be dismantled, replaced by private schools. Whether everyone would be able to attend these schools is unclear at best. Connected to this has been an attack on the teaching profession, which is well under way, and nearly complete in its success (Arkansas has begun hiring uncertified teachers due to lack in interest in the profession). It’s important to understand that this movement is driven by the business community, not educators primarily.

Some of this rhetoric has begun to be taken up by Kamehameha Schools, which has followed the Hawaiʻi DOE in many ways, beginning with standards development (which other private schools like Punahou do not do), so I thought it would be useful to get a sense of what ed reform (or ed deform as opponents have begun to call it) is, and what it isnʻt. To that purpose, I asked HSTA Treasurer, Mililani High School Social Studies department head and 2012 History Teacher of the Year, Dr. Amy Perruso to define ed reform. Here was her concise response:

I would say that the ed deform [yes, sheʻs “biased,” that is to say, has a position on this critical topic – welcome to the real world], properly understood, is a attempt to privatize public education primarily through an attack on teachers and teachers’ unions. It began with a manufactured crisis of low performance (Milton Friedman and Reagan’s “Nation at Risk”), for which teachers are blamed and scapegoated, and will end when the profession of teaching is destroyed, there are no more strong public schools, and access to education is limited to the social, political and economic elite.

Amy Perruso, PhD

In the 90s, I had to admit that I could not point to a “smoking gun” – solid proof that the elimination of public ed was the goal of the nascent ed reform movement. But now the evidence is beginning to be abundant, starting with the pending appointment of Betsy DeVos (wife of an heir to the Amway fortune), whose desire to end public education is well-known, as Education Secretary.*

I began this series, Reflective Practice, as a way of being contemplative of my own teaching practice, but it is equally important to be cognizant of the context in which oneʻs practice is taking place, rather than trudging along oblivious of the forces that create the conditions within which we work with students.

* Contemplating her nomination, the Washington Post published this “scenario” regarding DeVos’s ensuing push for school vouchers:

The shift of funds away from public school districts creates further stresses on traditional public schools. They are deprived of longstanding resources that compensate for the unwillingness of most states to provide adequate levels of funding for those districts that lack the capacity to raise enough money from local property tax revenues.

As traditional public schools wither and close, more and more families are drawn to the unregulated private sector.

The loss of funds for traditional public schools makes teaching less attractive, and existing teachers leave the field in droves. Enrollment in teacher preparation programs plummets; these programs are unable to provide a sufficient supply of replacement teachers for local school districts, even as fewer teachers are needed.

The unregulated charter and private school sectors hire individuals with no formal preparation or commitment to teaching, and these schools function as revolving doors. Lacking a stable teaching force, even those private and charter schools aspiring to help their teachers develop professionally are stymied.

Share this:

Like this:

Iʻve ranted in the past about how Hawaiʻi voters voted away their own right to choose the members of the Board of Education. The 2016 Presidential election may be the same process, but increased by many orders of magnitude. Trump may not turn out to be a fascist – he could be too busy with the 3500 lawsuits he is involved in, or focused on his 50 businesses, which he will somehow continue to run while governing the most powerful country on Earth. But the warnings have been issued. There have been enough caricatures of Trump in Nazi garb so that anyone paying attention would at least have come across the idea. So the 2016 vote may indeed be one in which voters – proudly, I would add – voted away their own freedoms.

It’s a fact that we often neglect that corporations are, in fact, dictatorships. Thatʻs so much a given that itʻs become invisible. But the US has now handed its reigns to someone who has only known that paradigm.

The term “non-college educated” was repeatedly used on election night to describe Trump’s base, and these are the same voters for whom a hatred of Obama has been simmering for eight years. It was easy to dismiss these people, with their crazy ideas and support of Sarah Palin, but we – the “club members,” the college educated – have done so at our own peril. We have failed to fight hard enough for an education system that would reduce bigotry. When we say we are interested in education, we mainly have meant our own educations, and that of our children. This is evidenced by the flight to private and charter schools and by tacit support of “school choice.”True, there are many exceptions to this, and it was, and would have been a hard fight. Ed reform has focused so tightly on math and English, it’s led to some neglect of the social science/social studies and humanities fields that could promote empathy.

On an abstract lèvel, this is what weʻve been lacking. There has been a tendency to blame people for things they cannot help – citizenship on the right, lack of education on the left.

Later, reports began to come in that the vote fell not so much along educational lines, but along racial lines. In other words, educated white males had voted for Trump as well. This was not as counter-intuitive as it might seem. Many who go through college study business or “practical,” skill-oriented fields and they, like their non-club counterparts, do not really pick up the social science/humanities orientation – think of conservative fraternities in liberal colleges.

Hit the books – specifically those that build empathy

One thing that last eight years has perhaps made us forget is that it has always been very difficult for the Democrats to assemble a winning coalition. As the electoral votes began to run out on election night, and California, Oregon and Washington were done being counted for Clinton, it occurred to me how few pockets of left-wing sentiment there are in America. It was a sea of red after that.

Calls were already coming out for Progressive organizing before the election. My sense is that whatʻs needed is Progressive education in empathy.

Like this:

Kaʻiulani Milham, a writer and participant in the Naʻi Aupuni constitutional convention, published a thoughtful editorial in Civil Beat about a topic very relevant to the readers of this blog, so I thought Iʻd give my line-by-line two cents. She often hits the mark, but sometimes, in my view, misses it.

With the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, Kānaka Maoli face a vastly altered landscape in our pathway to self-determination and the question of whether or not to accept the Department of Interior’s final rule, for federal recognition.

Probably the main point that Milham misses for Fed-Rec, which is that itʻs dead. It was to be done by executive order, so even if Obama signs on Jan. 19th, Trump will unsign on the 20th.

The country we contemplated a nation-to-nation relationship with, is not the same nation we imagined last week.

But it is.The ill-will toward Hawaiians was always visible in Congress, which refused to consider the Akaka Bill for a dozen years (1999-2012). Anti-affirmative action sentiment (73%) was always going to be against us (if the Akaka Bill and Fed-Rec were something you wanted).

The aloha we uphold — kindness, welcoming and inclusion — are the polar opposite of Trump’s xenophobic essence and the underlying national spirit of exclusion his election revealed.

Yes and no. America is an incredibly divided country – thatʻs been clear for a while now.

His race-driven hatred for people of color, from Muslims to Mexicans, will be felt by Kānaka Maoli, too. Guaranteed.

I basically said this in my post “Hawaiians in Trump’s America.”

What’s worse is that the hatred he represents reflects the values of his share of U.S. voters who voted in this election.

Those who think as Trump does — as well as those willing to look the other way when he repeatedly showed himself to be a rampant racist and misogynist — have been empowered by his fascist rhetoric. They won’t be backing down from their bully pulpit any time soon.

The economic, health and social conditions of Hawaiians will not improve under a Trump presidency.

Probably true.

Nor can we afford to delude ourselves that federal recognition will protect our cultural and natural resources.

When I was on John Kane’s radio show, Letʻs Talk Native (WBAI, New York City), I read the litany of Hawaiian socio-economic ills, and he said “We have all those things with Federal Recognition!” Heʻs one Native American who gets it.

The shocking images from the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota, flooding our social media pages for weeks now, has shown just how far America’s corporatocracy will go to rape the natural resources, culture and sacred places of native people.

If Barack Obama has not had the moral courage to stop the atrocities being committed there in the name of Big Oil and Energy Transfer Partner’s Dakota Access Pipeline, we would be insane to believe Trump will do better.

And you were about to celebrate “Thanksgiving,” created to thank Native Americans who helped pilgrims survive their first winter, while Standing Rock was going on? Thereʻs another holiday on Monday, Nov. 28 – Lā Kuʻokoʻa, Hawaiian Independence Day – no guilt required in its celebration.

But the “status quo” also looms like a bogey man — with impossibly high-priced housing, a failing state education system, high incarceration rates and low graduation rates and countless other chronic social and health issues for Hawaiians.

Under the specter of Rice v. Cayetano and other anti-Hawaiian U.S. Supreme Court rulings, federal recognition advocates fret over the anticipated loss of federal funds Hawaiians have become dependent on to revive our still threatened ʻŌlelo Hawaii and other foundational pillars of our culture.

See above comments on affirmative action.

Fear of losing these programs and funds drove our trustees at the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to invest an estimated $43 million, on various attempts at federal recognition, that we now see has been spent for naught.

Gambling on a tag-team effort by back-to-back Obama and Hillary Clinton administrations to carry their federal recognition dream into reality, our trustees have been caught with their pants down.

How foolish to think tying our futures to the vagary of American politics was the safest course.

Yet Milham participated in Naʻi Aupuni. Is this an admission?

We are not safe.

Not on any level.

More importantly, as Haunani K. Trask famously declared on the 100th anniversary observance of the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1993, “We are not Americans!”

In a larger, pragmatic sense, none of us here are “Americans.”

Possibly true, but it misses the point that some really arenʻt Americans – oneʻs citizenship is not a matter of opinion. Some Hawaiians have no American ancestry and thus retain only Hawaiian citizenship.

Now, because of this election, and what it portends for American politics in the foreseeable future, we all must honestly consider how maintaining ties to America impacts all of us in Hawaii.

These islands are 2,471 miles away from the nearest American soil, a world a way culturally from Washington, D.C.

With a climate change denier entering the Oval Office, and scientists concluding that climate change-induced sea level rise will hit Hawaii harder than anywhere on Earth, we have to ask ourselves:

When did the deciders in Washington, D.C. ever prioritize the well being of Pacific Islanders?

I asked myself a similar question when I was looking for graduate programs – in university departments itʻs as if the Pacific does not exist.

Not in post WWII Hawaii when America used Kahoʻolawe for a half-century-long bombing campaign that broke the island’s water table and left it uninhabitable, littered with unexploded ordinance that largely remain below the surface after $400 million spent on clean up.

And only got 70% of the surface and 10% of the subsurface.

Not in 1946 when America began its 56-year bombing run on Bikini Atoll, or when it dropped a hydrogen bomb there in 1954, leaving the Marshall Islands toxic to this day.

Not for the last 45 years as America invited half the world’s armed forces to use Hawaiian waters for RIMPAC’s biennial exercises with their devastation of our marine resources.

Not in 1997 when America rejected the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, turning its back on sea-level rise impacts to Pacific peoples.

Not when Tuvalu began its evacuations, as sea-level rise inundated their islands, or when Kiribati bought land in Fiji in preparation for evacuations to come.

Not in 2014 when Obama announced the Pacific Pivot, further militarizing the Pacific and putting Pacific peoples firmly in the scatter-gun pattern of collateral damage from America’s future wars.

Not today when America’s reluctant signature to the Paris Climate Accord is threatened with abrogation by Trump.

If America puts this little value on protecting the Pacific, our Hawaiians Islands and Pacific Islanders in general, how can any of us here in Hawaii feel safe?

Does Trump think of Hawaii when he says he’s going to “Make America Great Again?”

More likely he’ll put Hawaii in the crosshairs of America’s enemies.

The reality for Hawaii is, this unbalanced, undisciplined, inexperienced American president will have unprecedented potential to fatally bungle foreign relations with North Korea, China or some other American enemy.

Hawaii, being the nearest target, will be attacked just like it was on Dec. 7, 1941.

Hawaiians, unquestionably, have suffered most from the imposition of American rule over our islands, but we’re NOT the only ones who will suffer if it continues.

Brown or white, we in Hawaii are all Pacific islanders.

Not exactly. Some people here think weʻre an annex of Southern California.

Whether Hawaii will survive for our future generations will depend on our resolve to form a unified independent Hawaiian government.

We can confront the challenges of restoring Hawaiian Independence together, wait to see what American politics will bring, or slowly sink beneath the waves of sea-level rise, climate change induced mass extinctions and the myriad other environmental threats that stand before us.

In Honolulu stands ʻIolani Palace, built by King David Kalākaua in 1882, and which remains a symbol of the Hawaiian nation for many Hawaiians today. David La’amea Kalākaua was born on November 16, 1836 near Puowaina, which today we call Punchbowl. The name Kalākaua meant “the day of battle.” He was the son of Chief Caesar Kapa’akea and Chiefess Analeʻa Keohokālole but was the hānai son of High Chiefess Ha’aheo who was the governor of Maui. He was not of the Kamehameha line, but descended from Keaweaheulu, a Kona chief who was an advisor to Kamehameha. Later in life Kalakaua published his genealogy in his election campaigns for monarch.

King David Kalākaua (1874-1891)

In his youth David Kalākaua spent the early part of his childhood in Lāhaina, Maui. Later he traveled to the island of Oahu to attend the chiefs children school, also known as the Royal School, where he attended for nine years. At the age of 14 Kalākaua started military training and by the age of 16 he was commissioned as a captain in the Hawaiian Army. After this Kalākaua served in many important government positions including Army Major on Kamehameha IV’s staff but his last job before becoming King of the Hawaiian Kingdom was a clerk in the Kingdoms Land Office. (Allen 1994)

Kalakaua’s election was a contentious one. He was running for the second time, this time against the greatly admired Queen Dowager Emma. Her supporters had formed the first political party in Hawai’i, the “Emmaites,” whose motto was “Hawaii for Hawaiians” (Osorio, 2002, p. 162). While Emma was viewed as pro-British due to her English heritage, Kalakaua was seen as more pro-American and pro-business. For this reason he had support in the legislature, and won the election of 1874 by a vote of 39 to 6. There was no popular vote as it was not required by the constitution. Emma’s supporters rioted, storming the courthouse and attacking Hawaiian legislators who had voted for Kalakaua (Osorio, 2002, p. 156). British and American troops from ships in the Honolulu harbor were called on to quell the riot.

Dowager Queen Emma

As with the previous election, the issue of genealogy was an important one. Emma was descended from Kamehameha’s brother Keliʻimaika’i, and his advisor John Young, which meant she was one-quarter English (Osorio, 2002, p. 152). Kalakaua used the newspapers to show that his genealogy was as exalted as Kamehameha’s – he was not a Kamehameha , but descended from Kekaulike, who was Kamehameha’s ancestor. His great-grandfathers were the “Kona uncles” from Kamehameha’s wars of unification, Keaweaheulu and Kameʻeiamoku (Osorio, 2002, p. 150). The fact that he was not actually a Kamehameha seemed to work against him, and Kalākaua was an unpopular victor. Thus, his reign began on an auspicious note, and did not cease to be controversial.

King David Kalākaua was married to Kapiolani who was the grand daughter of the high ranking Ali’i nui of Kauai, Kaumuali’i. Kapi’olani was very concerned with the health and welfare of her Hawaiian people. She came up with a royal motto during Kalākaua’s reign, she called it “Hoʻoulu Lāhui,” or “Increase the Nation.” Because of her efforts to rejuvenate the well being of the Hawaiian people Kalākaua decided to dedicate a large parcel of royal land that was found in Waikīkī in her honor, today it is known as Kapi’olani Park. King Kalākaua and Kapi‘olani’s efforts helped preserve many of the cultural practices Hawaiians have today. During Kalākauas reign they both dedicated time to practice Hawaiian mele, hula, and many other cultural practices. Which in turn encouraged many other Hawaiian to do the same. (Allen 1994)

The continued overriding concern during the reign of Kalakaua was the threat of an imperialist takeover. War ships of imperialist countries were nearly always present in Honolulu Harbor. In 1887, Kalākaua wrote of his people:

Within a century they have dwindled from four hundred thousand healthy and happy children of nature, without care and without want, to a little more than a tenth of that number of landless, hopeless victims to the greed and vices of civilization … Year by year their footprints will grow more dim along the sands of their reef-sheltered shores, and fainter and fainter will come their simple songs from the shadows of the palms, until finally their voices will be heard no more for ever (Kalākaua, 1888, 64-65, quoted in Nordyke, 1989, 27).

Kalākaua’s view of Hawaiian population decline is supported by data. The population of full-blooded Hawaiians decreased as a percentage of the total by nearly fifty percent during roughly the period of Kalākaua’s reign, from 86% in 1872 to 38% in 1890 (Schmitt, 1968, 74). In [pure numbers], full-blooded Hawaiians declined from 49,000 to 34,400 over that period (Schmitt, 1968, 74). The population of part-Hawaiians, however, was steadily increasing – from 4.4 to 6.9 percent during the same period. The non-Hawaiian population grew, as a percentage of the total, from 9.4% to 54.9% over the same period of 1872 to 1890 (Schmitt, 1968, 74). The total population grew from nearly 57,000 to 89,000 during this period mainly due to immigration for plantation work (Schmitt, 1968, 70). The first Chinese laborers had arrived in 1852, and the first Japanese laborers in 1868.

By 1880 there were fifty-four sugar plantations covering over 22,000 acres (Maclennan, 1997, 98 – 101). One technology connected to sugar and other agricultural industries was railways. Though the first railroad services were short tracks in 1857 and 1858, the first railroad with passenger service was The Kahului & Wailuku Railroad in 1879. The Oahu Rail and Land Company provided extensive rail service on Oʻahu from 1889 until 1947 (Schmitt, 1995, 64).

These changes were facilitated by the 1876 reciprocity treaty with the US. The reciprocity treaty included a number of stipulations. mutual free trade, Hawaii not being able to sign similar agreements with others, and Hawaii not being able to sell of lease lands or harbors to others were among the stipulations of the treaty.

According to Kuykendall, the effects of the 1876 reciprocity treaty were as follows:

In 1875 Hawaii exported twenty-five million pounds of sugar; fifteen years later, the amount was more than two hundred and fifty million pounds…and thereafter [Hawai‘i] doubled its tonnage of sugar shipments every ten years.

The economic effects of the 1876 reciprocity treaty included increased sugar production, which lead to increased tax revenues and ultimately lead stimulated the overall economy, and increased infrastructure development resulted from the reciprocity treaty. This treaty also facilitated other government efforts, such as the building of ʻIolani Palace.

The reciprocity treaty affected the environment by diverting water from the windward side to the leeward side. This, in return, altered windward and leeward environments. Waiahole ditch, trail, and bridge were built because of the treaty in order to insure steady source of irrigation water at an affordable price allowing for growth of diversified agriculture in Central and Leeward Oahu

Socio-cultural effects were also felt as a result of the reciprocity treaty. Living subsistence lifestyles became more difficult. More Hawaiians started working on plantations. Increased immigration, multi-cultural context, and national pride were also felt.

Political effects were seen after the signing of the reciprocity treaty of 1876. The treaty restricted sovereign prerogatives. The signing of this treaty tied Hawai’i to the US. It increased the power of businessmen and improved Hawai’i’s image abroad.

Kalākaua initiated a study abroad program, which sent young Hawaiians to elite schools internationally – the most famous of these was Robert Kalanihiapo Wilcox, who later staged two counter-revolutions against the oligarchy

On his trip to the U.S. he ventured to see President Ulysses S. Grant in order to persuade him and United States Congress to adopt a “Reciprocity Treaty.” Besides traveling the world he also was a supporter of new technology. King Kalākaua made plans to build a new palace. In 1881 ‘Iolani Palace opened – it cost nearly three hundred sixty thousand dollars. The palace eventually was one of the first buildings to have telephones and electric lighting. (Allen 1994)

The United States was reluctant to renew the reciprocity treaty because US sugar growers were protesting. The treaty needed a greater incentive: the Pearl Harbor clause. While sugar growers desperately wanted to renew the reciprocity treaty at any cost Kalākaua would not include the Pearl Harbor clause. The sugar grower’s solution was to sign over Pearl Harbor without the king’s approval and make Kalākaua a mere puppet king. While Kalākaua had many strengths, he was also vulnerable. One of Kalākaua’s strengths was that he promoted a vigorous economy. He also promoted the political autonomy and recognition of Hawai‘I and the Hawaiian cultural renaissance. Kalākaua went through a time with a vigorous economy. This included the Reciprocity Treaty of 1876 and the 1881 World trip during which he helped to secure laborers from Portugal and Japan. Kalakaua’s trip around the world took him to San Francisco, Japan, where he met with the emperor and discussed a Pacific confederation, Siam (Thailand), Malaysia, Burma, India, Egypt, where he was inducted into the Egyptian order of freemasons, Naples and Rome in Italy, where he had an audience with the pope, Austria, Portugal, London, New York, Boston, New Bedford, Chicago, Omaha, Ogden, and finally back to San Francisco and Hawai’i. The trip took about nine months. In Portugal and Japan he secured laborers for the sugar plantations.

The position of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s autonomy and reputation benefited from Kalākaua’s efforts. He helped establish diplomatic relations with nations worldwide, including several treaties. He opposed the cession of Pearl Harbor and had built ‘Iolani Palace and Ali‘iolani Hale. In Hawaiʻi, a Hawaiian cultural renaissance occurred during Kalākaua’s reign. He fostered the preservation of traditions such as hula, mele, hīmeni, mo‘olelo (stories and history), wahi pana (famous places), mo‘okū ‘auhau (genealogies), and lā‘au lapa‘au (medical practices). Kalakaua and Walter Murray Gibson became heavily indebted in Claus Spreckles. Spreckles, who was called “the uncrowned king of Hawai’i,” held more than half the national debt (Zambucka, 1983, 106).

Walter Murray Gibson was accused of being involved in the sale of public offices, exemptions to Hansen’s disease (known then as Leprosy) patients, an opium scandal, and elaborate plans for a Pacific empire. The actions of Kalākaua’s associates sparked questions from his constituents, and led to attacks in the press, but whether these “scandals” ever occurred is debatable. Osorio (2002, p. 184) states that “most of the charges were never proven.”

The Hawaiian League was a secret group of foreigners connected to the sugar industry. Their oath of allegiance included the statement “I do solemnly promise… that I will keep secret the existence and purpose of this League to protect the white community of this Kingdom” (Thurston 1936, 608).

In 1887, numerous “scandals” became public, the Reform Party sent petitions and wrotes letters to the newspaper and the Gibson cabinet resigned. The Hawaiian League said that the resignations were not enough. Their supporters then wrote, “The King must be prepared to take his own proper place, and to be content to reign without ruling” (Kuykendall 1967, 358). The Hawaiian League called for a “public meeting” where the attendees “unanimously” called for Kalākaua to meet their demands, Kalākaua agreed and on July 1, 1887 he appointed a Reform Party cabinet. With the Honolulu Rifles surrounding the palace area, the Cabinet presented Kalākaua with the Bayonet Constitution.

The Bayonet Constitution stipulated that the Cabinet and Legislature could override the king and Europeans, Americans, and Hawaiians could vote if they met property and income requirements and if they pledged allegiance to the Bayonet Constitution. With the Bayonet Constitution in place, the Reform party cabinet signed the renewed reciprocity treaty with the Pearl Harbor clause. This event came to mar Kalākaua’s reign, which, at seventeen years, was the second-longest of any monarch.

Kalākaua was successful in many of his goals, such as renewing Hawaiian cultural practices and modernizing Hawaiʻi, but whether these goals were compatible remains an open question. The Bayonet constitution appears to have set the stage for the 1893 overthrow. He was visionary, cultivating a new generation of Hawaiian leaders through his study abroad program, but perhaps not as mindful of what was occurring immediately before him. His last words, “Tell my people I tried,” seem to sum up his reign – good intentions and poor results.

Share this:

Like this:

The American philosopher Ken Wilber called Trump, when he was running, “the boy who would be King,” by which he meant that Trump was at the psycho-emotional level of a young child, and urged voting against him:

Not because he is a big alpha figure who would bust up the establishment. Not because he’s vulgar. Not because lacks a coherent policy vision. Those things can actually be evolutionarily potent in their proper measure. No, the real problem with Donald Trump is that in important lines of development he is arrested at the level of a five-year-old. Keep nukes out of the hands of children. Make sure to vote!

[For more on what is meant by “development” see my article “Integral 102”]

Now that Trump has tapped Steven Bannon for his inner circle, I looked at a Breitbart article (Bannon is a Breitbart executive). The article made the “argument” that the key to women’s happiness was to “uninvent” the washing machine and the birth control pill, both of which had made them completely “miserable.” First, nothing is ever uninvented. Once technologies catch on – especially labor-saving devices – for better or worse, we seem to be stuck with them. Second, if anything needs to be “uninvented” is it really the washing machine? Not the nuclear bomb? To think that these things can be uninvented and that there’s not a population problem is to live in a fantasy world. They want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen – no wonder they were against Clinton for President!

Trump also speaks of using nuclear weapons, imperiling us all, as if only the US has them! Or only the US and Russia. As if he doesnʻt know that there are at least 13 nuclear states. And his responses to questions about their use is consistent with that of an adolescent boy: “Then why do we have them [if not to use them]?” This shows no understanding that nuclear weapons, to the extent that they have any valid use at all, are deterrents.

Finally, as far as I have observed, Trump has not once used the word democracy in his campaign, a campaign that has shown nothing but contempt for the idea. If things go the way many are predicting, Americans will have – proudly – voted their own, hard-won rights away by handing the nuclear codes, the Bush-Obama surveillance apparatus and the power of commander-in-chief of the US military to a child.

The first modern constitution (the Magna Carta is not considered an actually constitution, but rather a precursor to constitutions) was the US Constitution of 1788. Fifty-one years later, the Hawaiian Kingdom, having proclaimed a Declaration of Rights in 1839, promulgated the Constitution of 1840, of which the Declaration became a preamble. It always struck me that 50 years, in the slow process of “constitutionalism” was quite a short period of time. Today, constitutions are standard documents, but in the mid-1800s most governments were absolute monarchies, without constitutions. I had my students look up the answer to the question: How many constitutions were made in that 50 year period? The answer, excluding Hawaiʻi, is four! So if my information is correct, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s 1840 Constitution was only the fifth modern constitution in history! The four constitutions that predate Hawaiʻi’s are: the United States (1788), The Kingdom of Norway (1814), the Netherlands (1815), and Belgium (1831). Hawaiʻi followed in 1843 and Denmark was next in 1849. Now this list is of constitutions that are still in effect and only counts independent states, not federated states like New York, etc.

Those who question the credibility and viability of “The Kingdom” should contemplate this revelation, and consider the significance of the fact that Kamehameha III gave this constitution voluntarily, rather than being forced as King John was when the Magna Carta was created. The constitution was revised in 1852 by Kamehameha III and 1864 by Kamehameha IV to better adopt concepts such as separation of powers, before the 1887 Bayonet Constitution (according to Dr. Willie Kauai the first time race was used to delineate citizens) was illegally forced on King Kalākaua.